Relative Survival of Subyearling Chinook Salmon
That Have Passed Bonneville Dam Via the Spillway or Second Powerhouse
Turbines or Bypass System: Adult Recoveries Through 1991
by Lyle G. Gilbreath, Earl M. Dawley,
Richard D. Ledgerwood, Paul J . Bentley, and Stephen J . Grabowski
January 1993
RELATIVE SURVIVAL OF SUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON THAT HAVE PASSED BONNEVILLE DAM VIA THE SPILLWAY OR SECOND POWERHOUSE
TURBINES OR BYPASS SYSTEM: ADULT RECOVERIES THROUGH 1991
by
Lyle G. Gilbreath Earl M. Dawley
Richard D. Ledgerwood Paul J. Bentley
and Stephen J. Grabowski
Funded.by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract E96910013
and
Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2725 Montlake Boulevard East
Seattle, Washington 98112-2097
January 1993
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ADfilT RECOVEWES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1987 Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1988 Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1989 Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1990 Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
ACKNOVVLEDGI\IENTS .......................................... 17
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-26
INTRODUCTION
During the summers of 1987-1990, differentially marked upriver bright stock (URB)
juvenile fall chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were released simultaneously
through a turbine and the bypass system at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse (Fig. 1).
Additional releases were made 1) into the tailrace at the downstream edge of the turbine
boil, 2) about 2 km downstream from the dam, and 3) through the spillway. However,
none of these release sites were used in all 4 years. Each year, about 2 million fish were
released. For about 2 months after release, juvenile salmon were seined in the Columbia
River estuary (at Jones Beach), 15?' km downstream from Bonneville Dam. Recovery
percentages from seining were used to estimate short-term comparative passage survival
for fish groups sent through the various passage routes.
Estuarine recovery percentages of juvenile fish provided startling evidence
concerning relative survival among groups through an 4 years of study. Recovery
percentage of bypass-released fish was low relative to other release groups, but was
variable, ranging from 0.44 to 0.80% (Table 1). In the first 2 years, recovery percentages
for bypass-released groups were significantly less (P < 0.05) than for turbine-released
groups; mean differences were 10.8% in 1987 and 13.6% in 1988. In the last 2 years,
recovery percentages for bypass-released groups remained less than for turbine-released
groups, but neither difference was statistically significant (3.3% in· 1989 and 2.5% in
1990). However, the combined data from all 4 years indicated a significant difference in
recovery percentages, with 7.6% less for bypass-released groups than for turbine-released
groups (P < 0.05). For 3 years of data, recovery percentages for bypass-released groups
averaged 14.1, 7.3, and 3.6% less than for tailrace-released groups. Combined data
showed an 8.3% lower recovery for bypass groups, indicating a significant difference in
relative survival compared with tailrace-released groups. Relative survival for groups
Hamilton lsland boat !aunch
// release
2
Spillway
and bypass system releases
Spillway release
Forebay
l • Rete2se lo:ations I
Figure 1.--Schematic of Bonneville Dam and \ricinity showing release locations for subyearling chinook salmon during 1987-90 studies.
3
Table 1.--Summary of juvenile recovery percentages and percentage differences among groups, Bonneville Dam passage survival study, 1987-1990.
Treatment
Bypass
Upper turbine Mid-level turbine Tail race
Downstream Spillway
Upper turbine
Bypass
Bypass Combined turbine
Tailrace Spillway
• Weighted by year.
1987 1988 1989 1990 Average•
Recovery percentage
0.5764 0.4376 0.8007 0.5577 (0.5106)b
0.6402 0.5024 0.8298 ntc 0.6528 0.5104 0.8256 0.5721
nt 0.5095 0.8637 0.5686 (0.5299)b
0.556711 0.5690 0.9061 nt nt nt 0.9604 nt
Percentage difference from mid-level turbine-released groups• -1.9 -1.6 0.5 nt -1.0
Percentage difference from combined turbine-released groupsr -10.8* -13.6* -3.3 -2.5b -7.6*
Percentage difference from tailrace-released groups' nt -14.1* -7.3 -3.6 nt -0.6 -4.2 0.6
Percentage difference from downstream-released groups nt -10.5* -4. 7 nt nt nt 6.0 nt
-8.3* -1.4
-7.6* 6.0
b In 1990, the first 11 turbine release groups were compromised, thus only the last 10 groups can be compared to bypass or tailrace release groups. All 21 groups were used for comparing the bypass to tailrace release groups, shown in parentheses.
c nt = not tested. d The downstream release in 1987 was made at the shoreline, whereas all other releases were in
mid-river. e Percentage difference from indicated m:!!!:12 = [(Treatment% - indicated Im!!!J!%) + indicated
Jm!!m%] x 100. r Average of turbine groups released at the ceiling and at mid-depth of the intake. 8 Tailrace release site was at the downstream side of turbine discharge boil, directly into or 46 m
upstream from the bypass discharge plume. * Significant at a = 0.05.
4
passing through the Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse tailrace appeared to be poor.
Recovery percentages for tailrace-released groups were significantly different (7.6% lower)
than for downstream-released groups. Relative survival for spillway-released groups was
evaluated only in 1989. The recovery percentage for spillway-released groups was not
significantly different from that of downstream-released groups. Details of fish releases
and juvenile recoveries are presented in Ledgerwood et al. (1990, 1991).
Coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery data for immatures and adults (hereafter termed
adults) emanating from fish groups released through the 4 years of study will be used to
estimate long-term relative survival of treatment groups. CWT returns to National
Marine Fisheries Service provide the greatest number of data points and are the basis for
comparing treatment groups for each release-year. CWT recovery data, collated by Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) as of 19 May 1992, were the basis for
examining the geographical distributions and comparing recovery percentages tiO similar
fish groups released by other fisheries agencies. Treatment groups with the highest
annual recovery percentage as juveniles were selected to represent the Bonneville survival
study in those comparisons.
ADULT RECOVERIES
Adult fall chinook salmon CWT recoveries are incomplete, relative to the number
that will be used in the final analysis. CWTs from adults recovered to date include: 4,134
s 5 years old from those released in 1987; 282 S 4 years old from those released in 1988;
791S3 years old from those released in 1989; and 261S2 years old from those released
in 1990. The number of recoveries is extremely low; much lower than the predicted 0.5%
for all the 2- tiO 5- year-old fish. Recovery percentages of fish from the present study are
less than recovery percentages of similar groups of hatchery-released fish. Possible
5
reasons for the overall low recoveries, and their corresponding low survival estimates vary
between years, as discussed below.
1987 Releases
Recoveries for 2- to 5-year-old fish from releases of subyearling fall chinook salmon in
1987 are nearly complete; 0.24% or about 52 fish per release group were recovered
(Table 2). Based on recoveries to date, a difference in recoveries of about 11.9% would be
necessary to prove a statistically significant difference between treatments (Appendix
Table 1). Downstream groups were ~eleased at the shoreline and were recovered in
significantly lower percentages than groups released at the dam (23.3% less than
combined upper and mid-level turbine groups; Table 3). Recovery percentages for
bypass-released groups averaged 5.3% greater than for combined turbine-released groups,
but the difference was not significant. Upper turbine-released groups, thought to pass
through the safest of the two turbine passage routes (closer to the blade hub), produced an
average of 6.5% fewer recoveries than mid-level turbine-released groups, although this
difference was not significant. Data for adult recoveries in 1992 will complete this data
set, although few additional tag recoveries are expected. The complete data set will likely
be insufficient to distinguish statistical differences between bypass- and turbine-released
groups.
Differences in adult recoveries among treatment groups did not indicate the same
survival tendencies as those observed in juvenile recoveries. Juvenile recoveries indicated
that survival of bypass-released groups was significantly lower than combined
turbine-released groups (10.8%; Table 1). Adult tag recovery data indicated just the
opposite, although the difference was not significant (5.3%; Table 3).
6
Table 2.-Coded-wire-tag recoveries from adults which were released as subyearling fall chinook salmon during 1987 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2February1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salmon Hatcheries.
Number of recoveries and (percent of releaser by release location
Release Bypass Mid-level Upper date system Downstream turbine turbine Totalsb
24June 27 (0.1404)c 15 (0.1342) 14 (0.1587) 19 (0.1922) 75 (0.1564) 25 June 23 (0.1415) 21 (0.1350) 69 (0.1862)c 13 . (0.0865) 116 (0.1373) 26June 33 (0.1841) 18 (0.1121) 34 (0.2021) 67 (0.1996Y 142 (0.1746) 27 June 36 (0.2042) 47 (0.1392)° 18 (0.0944) 31 (0.1838) 130 (0.1554) 28June 77 (0.2145)c 24 (0.1402) 44 (0.2866) 22 (0.1167) 167 (0.1845)
lJuly 35 (0.2517) 24 (0.1531) 88 (0.2504)c 24 (0.1520) 171 (0.2018) 2July 37 (0.2085) 26 (0.1457) 29 (0.1867) 76 (0.2163Y: 168 (0.1838) 3July 39 (0.2134) 53 (0.15731 37 (0.2004) 42 (0.2573) 171 (0.2071) 4July 73 (0.2018)c 37 (0.2050) 62 (0.2827) 38 (0.2136) 200 (0.2257) 5July 61 (0.2794) 31 (0.1715) 49 (0.2860)cd 50 (0.2806)d 181 (0.2494)
8July 41 (0.2241) 47 (0.2598) 43 (0.2328) 97 (0.2722Y: 228 (0.2472) 9July 89 (0.3672) 97 (0.26271' 72 (0.3848) 52 (0.2822) 290 (0.3242)
10 July 105 (0.2808)0 48 (0.2652) 61 (0.3228) 46 (0.2614) 260 (0.2801) 11 July 55 (0.2933) 46 (0.2518) 87 (0.2290)0 50 (0.2807) 238 (0.2637) 12 July 68 (0.3626) 38 (0.2103) 45 (0.2427) 128 (0.35071' 279 (0.2916)
15 July 68 (0.364.2) 113 (0.3058Y 67 (0.3209) 41 (0.2250) 279 (0.3040) 18 July 102 (0.2726)0 41 (0.2277) 64 (0.2861) 54 (0.2991) 251 (0.2714) 17 July 43 (0.2294) 62 (0.2806) 120 (0.3166)0 67 (0.3280) 272 (0.2884) 18 July 71 (0.3792) 35 (0.1889) 70 (0.3697) 123 co.3a78r 299 (0.3189)
19 July _M (0.3254) -11 co.2103r __j! (0.2623) ~ (0.1857) 217 (0.2459)
Totals 1,111 890 1,079 1,054 4,134 No. released 434,880 435,099 423,294 427,112 1,720,385 Mean recov. 'fa• 0.2568 0.1978 0.2520 0.2366 0.2366'
ANOVA1 1 2 1 1
• Calculated by dividing the number of observed recaptures by the number of fish released (adjusted for tag toes) and then multiplying by 100.
b Calculated ae the unweight.ed average of group recapture percentages for releases on that dat.e. c Double groups (40,000 vs. 20,000 fish); on 24 June about 20,000 vs. 10,000 fish. d At release on 5 July 1987, diminished oxygen in the tank truck appeared to have caused mortality to
portions of the mid-level turbine and upper turbine-released groups. The initial on-site mortality estimates were 60 and 10% respectively. Based on juvenile recovery data we changed the estimates to 100 and 50%. Those estimates were incorrect, thus we have altered them to 50 and 0% respectively.
• Weighted equally by block (i.e., by release day). Empirical standard etTor =/"Mean Square Error + n = 0.009850.
r Grand mean = average for treatment mean recovery percentage, used in ANOV A. 1 Common number indicates no significant difference at a = 0.05. Calculat.ed detectable difference = 11.9%
(see Appendix Table 1).
7
Table 3.-Summary of adult recovery percentages and percentage differences among groups, Bonneville Dam passage survival study, 1987-1990.
Treatment
Bypass
Upper turbine Mid-level turbine Tailrace
Downstream Spillway
Upper turbine
Bypass
Bypass Combined turbine
Bypass Combined turbine Tail race Spillway
• Weighted by year.
1987 1988 1989 1990 Average•
Recovery Percentage
0.2568 0.0154 0.0339 0.0095 (0.0135)b
0.2356 0.0179 0.0323 ntc 0.2520 0.0138 0.0356 0.0125
nt 0.0184 0.0413 0.0131 (0.0169)b
0.1978d 0.0152 0.0387 nt nt nt 0.0410 nt
Percentap difference from mid-level turbine-released fm!UJ!S0
-6.6 29.7 -9.3 nt 4.6
Percentap difference from combined turbine-released grouper 6.3 -3.1 -0.3 -24.0b -6.6
Percentap difference from tailrace-released groups8
nt -16.3 -17.9 -20.1 nt -13.6 -17.7 -4.6b
Percentage difference from downstream-released groups 29.SCS 1.3 -12.4 nt 23.:r 4.6 -12.1 nt nt 21.1 6. 7 nt nt nt 6.6 nt
-18.1 -12.0
-5.6' 5.:r'
13.9 5.6
b In 1990, the first 11 turbine release groups were compromised, thus only the last 10 groups can be compared to bypass or tailrace release groups. All 21 groups were used for comparing the bypass to tailrace release groups, shown in parentheses.
c nt =not tested. d The downstream release in 1987 was made at the shoreline, whereas all other releases were in
mid-river. Treatment differences using this datum are excluded from the average. • Percentage difference from indicated m:2!!2 = [(Treatment% - indicated 8!2!!J!%) + indicated
K!2!!J!%] x 100 r Average of turbine groups released at the ceiling and at mid-depth of the intake. 8 Tailrace release site was at the downstream side of turbine discharge boil, directly into or 46 m
upstream from the bypass discharge plume. * Significant at a = 0.05.
8
Adult recovery percentages of URB fall chinook salmon from the study were low
compared to recoveries of URB fall chinook salmon released from Bonneville Hatchery
in 1987 (Table 4). Fish released at the hatchery in September were recovered at 2 to 3
times the percentage of study fish. We believe that poor adult survival was a result of
early release dates and small size of fish at release (4.5 g average; 101 fish/lb). Small
size may be associated with a late egg take and stunting from prophylactic treatment
for disease. Although the size of study fish did not change significantly during the
release period, recovery percentages for adults showed a progressive increase in direct
relation to release date (Table 2). Adult recovery percentages, averaged by week of
release, increased from 0.162 to 0.214% in late June and early July to 0.281 to 0.306%
in mid-July. Bonneville hatchery fish released in November were recovered as adults
at a percentage similar to study fish. Also, adult recoveries of URB fall chinook
salmon released elsewhere in the basin were recovered at percentages similar to those
of study groups (Table 4).
Distribution of tag recoveries by area (Appendix Table 2) appeared similar to that
of earlier broods of URB fall chinook salmon released from Bonneville Hatchery.
About 74% of total recoveries were made from the Columbia River Basin: 41% from
river fisheries; 21 % from Bonneville Hatchery; 11 % from Bonneville Pool hatcheries;
and 1 % strays to up-river sites. Recoveries from the 1991 fisheries in Canada and
Alaska are presently unreported; when these data are recorded, this will diminish the
distribution percentage for returns to the Columbia River Basin.
1988 Releases
Recoveries for 2- to 4- year-old fish from releases in 1988 averaged 0.02%, or about
five fish per release group (Table 5). Recovery data will be nearly complete with 1992
CWT returns (age 5). Based on recoveries to date, a difference in recoveries of about
37.4% would be necessary to prove a statistically significant difference between
9
Table 4.--Adult recovery percentages for Bonneville Dam passage survival study releases compared to other releases of upriver bright fall chinook salmon (from PSMFC data base 19 May 1992).
Release Information Recoveries
CWT8 Source Site Date Size Number Number % (g)
1987 Releases
232222 Bonn.Surv.Study Mid-level turb • ., 8/25-'7/19 4.4 423,294 1122 0.2'7 074738 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 918 21.9 143,042 787 0.55 074725 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 918 21.4 64,106 331 0.62 074735 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 918 19.6 81,012 596 0.74 074742 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 9/8 20.3 76,299 630 0.83 074318 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 1116 35.2 110,468 311 0.28 074320 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 11/6 34.4 107,515 289 0.27 633315 Klickitat Hat. Klickitat 615 6.5 102,426 110 0.11 073914 Irrigon Hat. Umatilla R. 5/8 7.5 121,076 330 0.27 B50714 Drano Lake Nets Drano Lake 5122 4.6 480,641 932 0.19 634261 Lyons Ferry Hat. Lwr.Snake R. 6/1 9.6 251,646 244 0.10 634401 Lyons Ferry Hat. Lwr.Snake R. 6/2 6.4 255,998 541 0.21 051921 Priest Rapids Hat. Lwr.Yakima R. 6/4 3.9 196,980 137 0.07 051918 Priest Rapids Hat. Y akima@Prosser 5/5 3.9 147,896 206 0.14 051922 Priest Rapids Hat. Yakima@Prosser 5127 7.0 489,950 21 0.00 634128 Priest Rapids Hat. Columbia R. 6125 8.3 201,779 171 0.08
1988 Releases
232660 Bonn.Surv.Study Downstream., 8/2'7-'7/24 8-9 386,2'75 88 0.02 232831° Rep.10 Surv.Study Downstream '7/22 '7.9 28,413 8 0.02 232841° Rep.11 Surv.Study Downstream '7/23 8.0 29,336 10 0.03 232sscr Rep.12 Surv Study Downstream '7124 9.6 29,383 18 0.08
074254 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 611 5.2 53,333 22 0.04 074303 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 818 11.6 53,014 90 0.17 074304 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 11/3 34.6 52,809 66 0.12 073555 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. and 51.0 24,352 84 0.34 075007 Irrigon Hat. UmatmaR. 5/6 6.6 198,285 50 0.03 B50715 Little Wh.Sal.Hat. Lwr. Yakima R. 5/17 1.6 383,855 9 0.00 0501010103 Yakima Net Pens Upr. Yakima R. 5/18 3.8 236,469 1 0.00 635216 Lyons Ferry Hat. Lwr. Snake R. 6/1 8.6 494,488 23 0.00 635232 Hanford Reach Hanford 616 1.6 205,103 24 0.01 635226 Priest Rapids Hat. Columbia R. 6/18 6.6 196,221 20 0.01
10
Table 4.--Continued
Release Information Recoveries
Source Site Date Size Number Number % (g)
1989 Releases
233204 Bonn.Surv.Study Spillway" 8/22-'1/22 8-10 349,'189 122 0.03 075033 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 6/26 6.7 100,166 20 0.02 075036 Bonneville Hat. Mid-chan.Col. R. 6/26 7.4 101,050 22 0.02 074648 Irrigon Hat. Umatilla R. 5/16 6.0 624,295 14 0.00 074763 Irrigon Hat. Umatilla R. 10/18 41.6 153,249 11 0.01 0501010206 Little Wh.Sal.Hat. Lwr. Yakima R. 6/1 3.0 380,071 1 0.00 0501010204 Yakima Net Pens @ Dam on Yak. R. 6/30 6.3 282,302 1 0.00 635249 Priest Rapids Hat. Columbia R. 6/29 8.1 201,608 14 0.01 635252 Hanford Reach Hanford 6/10 200,630 11 0.01 630228 Lyons Fen-y Hat. Lwr. Snake R. 618 6.0 226,478 4 0.00 635207 Lyons Fen-y Hat. Lwr. Snake R. 6/14 6.1 234,103 3 0.00
1990 Releases
232839 Bonn.Surv.Study Tailrace" 8130-8/S 8-11 682,108 1'1 o.oo 075409 Bonneville Hat. Tanner Cr. 7/2 6.3 98,382 1 0.00 075407 Bonneville Hat. Mid-chan Col.R. 712 6.4 93,127 6 0.01 052338 Little Wh.Sal.Hat. Little Wh.Sal.R. 6126 4.1 44,804 0 0.00 631459 Klickitat Hat. Klickitat R. 6/17-617 6.0 234,841 0 0.00 076406 Irrigon Hat. Umatilla R. 6123 4.8 169,020 4 0.00 076327 Irrigon Hat. Umatilla R. 10/16 61.6 136,876 2 0.00 052120 Little Wh.Sal.Hat. Lwr. Yakima R. 6/16 2.6 166,966 0 0.00 0601010210 Yakima Net Pens @ Dam on Yak. R. 6/18 4.6 237,065 1 0.00 630732 Priest Rapids Hat. Columbia R. 6/19 8.0 194,630 2 0.00 630755 Hanford Reach Hanford 6/6 144,164 0 0.00 635560 Lyons Feny Hat. Lwr. Snake R. 618 8.3 484,918 3 0.00
• Coded-wire tag. More than one tag code may be represe~ted by the release data; a list of tags represented is shown in Appendix Table 7.
b The treatment groups with the highest juvenile recovery percentage Oowest treatment effects) were used for comparison with other URB release groups.
c Sub-set of the 1988 Bonneville Dam passage survival study recovery data listed directly above.
d Released the following spring.
11
Table 5.-Coded-wire-tag recoveries from adults which were released as subyearling fall chinook salmon during 1988 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2 February 1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salmon Hatcheries.
Release date
27 June 28June 29June
30June !July 2July
13 July 14 July 16 July
22 July 23 July 24 July
Totals
Number released
4 5 2
4 3 4
4 8 4
6 4 8
66
Mean % recov.•
ANOVA1
Bypass system
(0.0137) (0.0165) (0.0067)
(0.0134) (0.0101) (0.0135)
(0.0136) (0.0274) (0.0136)
(0.0160) (0.0136) (0.0266)
367,823
0.0164
1
Number of recoveries and (percent of releaser by release location
Downstream Tailrace
2 (0.0066) 4 (0.0136) 1 (0.0033) 3 (0.0099) 4 (0.0136) 3 (0.0100)
6 (0.02011 4 (0.0134) 4 (0.0133) 6 (0.0200) 2 (0.0034) 7 (0.0236)
4 (0.0137) 3 (0.0100) 5 (0.0170) 4 (0.0135) 3 (0.0102) 4 (0.0140)
3 (0.0102) 6 (0.0213) 8 (0.0273) 4 (0.0143)
13 (0.0441) 17 (0.0568)
66 66
386,276 363,410
0.0152 0.0184
1 1
5 2 2
4 6 3
2 3 6
6 7 6
49
Mid-level turbine
(0.0171) (0.0067) (0.0067)
(0.0133) (0.0203) (0.0100)
(0.0068) (0.0101) (0.0167)
(0.0168) (0.0238) (0.0167)
366,644
0.0138
1
7 3 3
5 3
6 7 7
3 9 6
68
Upper turbine
(0.0238) (0.0100) (0.0103)
(0.0177) (0.0101) d
(0.0168) (0.0237) (0.0233)
(0.0102) (0.0304) (0.0202)
324,244
0.0179
1
22 (0.0150) 14 (0.0093) 14 (0.0095)
23 (0.0156) 22 (0.0148) 16 (0.0126)
18 (0.0122) 27 (0.0183) 23 (0.0166)
22 (0.0149) 32 (0.0219) 49 (0.0329)
282
1,777,396
0.01611
• Calculated by dividing the number of observed recaptures by the number of fish released (adjusted for tag loss) and then multiplying by 100.
b Calculated as the unweight.ed average of group recapture percentages for releases on that date. c Group released at shoreline lat.era! t.o the normal release sit.e; for ANOVA, this was treated as a downstream treatment. d No fish released. • Weighted equally by block (i.e., by release day). Empirical standard error= /"Mean Square Error+ n = 0.0020976 . I Grand mean = average for treatment mean recovery percentage used in ANOV A.
' Common number indicates no significant difference at a= 0.06. Calculated detectable difference= 37.2% (see Appendix Table 1).
12
insufficient to draw substantive conclusions. Adult recovery percentages for URB fall
chinoo~ salmon from the present study were low compared to those of URB fall chinook
salmon released from Bonneville Hatchery in 1988 (Table 4). Fish released at the
hatchery in August were recovered at 8 times the percentage of study fish. At release, the
size and condition of study fish appeared normal. However, the last group of study fish
released were taken from Bonneville Hatchery production lots and were larger than study
fish released earlier, weighing an average of 9.5 g each (48 fish/lb) compared to 8.0 and
7.9 g (56.5 and 57.5 fish/lb) respectively, for study fish.released the previous 2 days.
These production-lot fish were recovered as adults at a substantially greater percentage
(0.06 compared to 0.03 and 0.02%, respectively). Adult recoveries ofURB fall chinook
salmon released elsewhere in the basin were recovered at percentages equal t;o or less
than those of the study groups (Table 4). For the entire Columbia River Basin, adult
contribution from 1988 releases ofURB fall chinook salmon were poor. In particular,
adult recoveries for study fish released in 1988 were only about 10 and 20% of those from
1987 and 1989 study groups (see Appendix Tables 2, 3, and 4 for comparison of similar
age adult recoveries).
Distribution of adult tag recoveries by area was similar to recoveries from study fish
released in 1987. Recoveries from Alaska and Canada are not yet complete and further
evaluation is inappropriate at this time (Appendix Table 3).
1989 Releases
Recovery for 2- to 3- year-old adults from 1989 releases of subyearling chinook
salmon averaged 0.04%, or about 11 fish per release group (Table 6). Based on recoveries
to date, a difference in recoveries of about 25.2% would be necessary to prove a
~
13
Table 6.--Coded-wire-tag recoveries from adults which were released as subyearling fall chinook salmon during 1989 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2 February 1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salmon Hatcheries.
Release date
22 June 23 June 24June
6Juty 7 July 8July
13 July 14 July 16 July
Bypass syst.em
3 (0.0103) 3 (0.0103) 4 (0.0138)
5 (0.0168) 9 (0.0303) 9 (0.0303)
14 (0.0473) 12 (0.0406) 8 (0.0270)
Number of recaptures and (percent of release)• by release location
Downstream Tailrace
5 (0.0168) 9 (0.0312) 6 (0.0202) 3 (0.0104) 3 (0.0101) 6 (0.0174)
8 (0.0272) 6 (0.0202) 11 (0.0374) 10 (0.0337) 16 (0.0610) 9 (0.0303)
12 (0.0406) 22 (0.0762) 14 (0.0472) 13 (0.0444) 11 (0.0370) 16 (0.0613)
Mid-level turbine
3 (0.0102) 4 (0.0136) 2 (0.0068)
9 (0.0303) 6 (0.0168) 8 (0.0269)
10 (0.0338) 14 (0.0473) 21 (0.0709)
Spillway
5 (0.0179) 1 (0.0036) 6 (0.0214)
11 (0.0377) 11 (0.0377) 8 (0.0276)
10 (0.0336) 20 (0.0670) 17 (0.0669)
Upper turbine
4 (0.0137) 6 (0.0172) 4 (0.0137)
12 (0.0407) 6 (0.0203) 7 (0.0237)
14 (0.0474) 12 (0.0406)
7 (0.0237)
29 (0.0167) 22 (0.0126) 24 (0.0139)
51 (0.0288) 62 (0.0294) 66 (0.0316)
82 (0.0463) 85 (0.0478) 79 (0.0446)
20 July 20 (0.0678) 20 (0.0665) 16 (0.0504) 26 (0.0869) 22 (0.0744) 11 (0.0365) 114 (0.0638) 21 July 14 (0.0476) 9 (0.0300) 18 (0.0605) 7 (0.0234) 14 (0.0474) 11 (0.0366) 73 (0.0409) 22 July 19 (0.0661) 24 (0.0799) 21 (0.0706) 18 (0.0602) 20 (0.0673) 22 (0.0730) 124 (0.0694)
Totals 120 138 146 127 146 116 791
Number 363,673 366,649 362,389 366,127 349,769 364,976 2,123,383 released
Mean recov. 'Jf,C 0.0339 0.0387 0.0413 0.0366 0.0410 0.0323 0.0371d
ANOVA• 1 1 1 1 1 1
• Calculated by dividing the number of observed recaptures by the number of fish released (adjusted for tag loss) and then multiplying by 100.
b Calculated as the unweight.ed avenge of group recapture percentages for releases on that date. 0 Weight.ed equally by block (i.e., by release day). Empirical standard error =/'Mean Square Error + n = 0.0032863. d Grand mean = average for treatment mean recovery percentage used in ANOV A. • Common number indicates no significant difference at a = 0.05. Calculated detectable difference = 25.2% (see Appendix
Table 1).
14
statistically significant difference between treatments with a 95% confidence interval
(Appendix Table 1). No differences of that magnitude were evident. The majority of
recoveries should come from 4- to 5- year-old fish, to be recovered in 1993 and 1994.
Comparison of recoveries of study fish to those of other groups released in 1989
indicated similar recovery percentages (Table 4). However, the recovery percentages are
not as large as those of 1987 releases. Recoveries of 2- and 3- year-old study fish released
in 1989 are equivalent to about 70% of those for fish of similar age released in 1987
(AppendiX Tables 2 and 4).
Distribution of adult tag recoveries by area is reported in Appendix Table 4, but is
incomplete at this time.
1990 Releases
Recoveries for 2-year-old study fish from releases of subyearling fall chinook salmon
in 1990 averaged 0.02%, or about four fish per release group (Table 7). Based on
recoveries to date, a recovery difference of about 26. 7% would be necessary to prove a
statistically significant difference between treatments with a 95% confidence interval
(Appendix Table 1). No difJerences of that magnitude were evident. The majority of
recoveries should come from age classes 3, 4, and 5, to be recovered in 1993, 1994, and
1995. Distribution of tag recoveries by area is reported in Appendix Table 5.
15
Table 7 .--Coded-wire-tag recoveries from adults which were released as subyearling fall chinook salmon during 1990 ti<> evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2 February 1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salmon Hatcheries.
Number ofreca:etures and ~J?!!cent of release}: b;! release location Release date B;mass !!stem Tailrace Mid-level turbine Totalsb 30June 3 (0.0118) 4 (0.0143) 4 (0.0146)c 11 (0.0136) 2July 6 (0.0218) 2 (0.0073) 8 (0.0292)c 16 (0.0194) 3 July 1 (0.0036) 6 (0.0219) 4 (0.0145)c 11 (0.0133)
5July 5 (0.0174) 2 (0.0073) 2 (0.0073)c 9 (0.0107) 6July 1 (0.0036) 2 (0.0073) 0 (0.0000)c 3 (0.0036)
10 July 3 (0.0108) 4 (0.0146) 4 (0.0139}c 11 (0.0131) 11 July 7 (0.0254) 7 (0.0266) 3 (0.0105)c 17 (0.0205) 12 July 8 (0.0291) 13 (0.0476) 8 (0.0280)° 29 (0.0349) 13 July 7 (0.0266) 9 (0.0329) 7 (0.0245)c 23 (0.0276)
17 July 9 (0.0323) 7 (0.0243) 8 (0.0287)c 24 (0.0284) 18 July _.! ~0.00712 .....! ~0.02092 ....! (0.01792° ~ ~0.0153)
Sub totaled 52 (0.0171) 62 (0.0204) 53 co.0112r 167 (0.0182)•
Number released 302,766 304,673 307,663 914,182
20 July 2 (0.0071) 3 (0.0104) 3 (0.0107) 8 (0.0094) 21 July 1 (0.0036) 6 (0.0173) 3 (0.0107) 9 (0.0106)
24 July 8 (0.0293) 7 (0.0266) 7 (0.0282) 22 (0.0280)
26 July 1 (0.0037) 4 (0.0151) 4 (0.0161) 9 (0.0116)
26 July 5 (0.0183) 4 (0.0151) 3 (0.0121) 12 (0.0152)
27 July 6 (0.0183) 4 (0.0151) 2 (0.0081) 11 (0.0138)
31 July 1 (0.0037) 3 (0.0105) 2 (0.0078) 6 (0.0073)
lAug 3 (0.0110) 2 (0.0070) 1 (0.0039) 6 (0.0073)
2Aug 0 (0.0000) 3 (0.0105) 4 (0.0166) 7 (0.0087)
..!A!!g __! ~0.0000! __! ~0.0035! _.! (0.0117! ~ ~0.0051! Sub totaled 26 (0.0095) 36 (0.0131) 32 (0.0143) 94 (0.0123)•
Number released 274,691 277,433 267,841 ANOVA' 1 1 1
Totals 78 98 86 261
Number released 577,347 682,106 666,394 1,724,847
Mean % recov.4 0.0135 0.0169 _c 0.016~
(.It\ ANOVA' 1 1 • Calculated by dividing the number of observed recaptures by the number of fish released (adjusted for tag
loss) and then multiplying by 100. b Calculated as the unweighted average of group recapture percent.ages for releases on that date. c Release hose failure compromised survival of the first 11 releases-data not used in ANOV A. d Mean recovery percentage weighted by block (i.e., by release day). • Grand mean = average for treatment mean recovery percentage used in ANOVA . r Common number indicates no statistical difference at a = 0.06. Empirical standard error = /'Mean Square
Error + n = 0.0015491 for three treatments of 10 releases, and = 0.001378 for two treatments of 21 releases. Det.ection difference= 26.7% for two treatments, and 39.8% for three treatment.a (see Appendix Table 1).
16
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis regarding passage survival differences among various routes through
Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, tailrace, and spillway will not be final for several
years, pending completion of adult recovery data. The reported recovery data are
preliminary, the status of which is reported in Appendix Table 6. Based on these
preliminary data, adult contributions to the various fisheries and returns to hatcheries
from study fish have been less than for other URB fall chinook salmon released at
Bonneville Hatchery. Because of these low recovery percentages, our ability to identify
statistically significant differences among treatments is much less than the planned 4 to
5% (at this date the range of detectable difference is 11.9 to 39.8%).
Trends observed in juvenile recovery data suggest bypass system passage did not
substantially improve survival over turbine passage. Our ability to identify statistically
significant differences among treatments ~as about 5% for juvenile recovery data from all
years combined. We speculate that bypass-released fish had decreased survival as a
result of: 1) increased predation because of point-source release location and water
currents directing fish toward the shoreline, 2) increased predation because of poor
predator avoidance due to stress and injuries from passage, and 3) increased indirect
mortality because of synergistic effects of stress and injuries incurred from passage
through the bypass system combined with the high water temperatures and diseases
incurred during migration down the river. We must emphasize that these data represent
only summertime conditions encouniiered by subyearling size fall chinook salmon at
Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, tailrace, and spillway. Also, test fish used in this
study were transported and released directly from a hatchery. Naturally migrating fish
may not show these same trends because of differences in predator avoidance and
migration behavior.
17
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to the outstanding efforts and excellent cooperation of the tag processing
personnel at the Clackamas Laboratory, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, we
received adult tag data from Bonneville Hatchery returns early in the year. Early
information was necessary to make systemwide decisions on allocation of URB fall
chinook salmon or future testing.
We also acknowledge the extra efforts of the staff of PSMFC. As always, they
quickly accommodated our requests for help in collecting large amounts of specialized
recovery data.
18
REFERENCES
Ledgerwood, R. D., E. M. Dawley, L. G. Gilbreath, P. J. Bentley, B. P. Sandford,
and M. H. Schiewe.
1990. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon which have passed Bonneville
Dam via the spillway or the Second Powerhouse turbines or bypass syst;em in 1989,
with comparisons t,o 1987 and 1988. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Contract E858900241E86890~97, 136 p. (Available from Northwest Fisheries
Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)
Ledgerwood, R. D., E. M. Dawley, L. G. Gilbreath, P. J. Bentley, B. P. Sandford,
and M. H. Schiewe.
1991. Relative survival of subyearling chinook salmon which have passed through
the turbines or bypass system of Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1990.
Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract E86900104, 90 p. <Available
from Northwest Fisheries Science Cent.er, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA
98112-2097.)
Sokal, R. R., and F. J. Rohlf.
1981. Biometry, 2nd. Edition. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA
776 p.
19
Appendix Table 1.-Analysis of treatment effects on adult fall chinook salmon recovery data from 1987-1990 tests using a randomized block ANOVA design where each day was considered a block (Sokal and Rohlf 1981).
H0 : There was homogeneity between recovery distributions of treatments.
1987 Releases- ANOVATable
Sum of Mean Significance Source sguares D.F. sguare F level Blocks 0.2532842 19 0.0133307 Treatments 0.0429558 3 0.0143186 7.36 0.0003 Error 0.1109063 57 0.0019457 Total 0.4071464 79
Homogeneous • Treatment Count Mean groups
Upper turbine 20 0.235565 Mid-level turb. 20 0.252045 Bypass 20 0.256805 Tailrace 20 0.197815 Grand mean 0.235558
1 1 1 2
Fishers' Protected Least S~ficance Difference (FPLSD) FPLSD = tcac0.o&xc1t=s7l(2MSE/r) =0.0279344. Detectable difference= (FPLSD/Grand mean)lOO = 11.9%
1988 Releases- ANOVATable
Sum of Source sguares D.F. Blocks 0.0022028 11 Treatments 0.0001698 4 Error 0.0023175 43 Total 0.0046901 58 One missing observation.
Mean square 0.0002003 0.0000424 0.0000539
Treatment Count Mean Upper turbine 11 0.0178636 Mid-level turb. 12 0.013750 Bypass 12 0.0153667 Tailrace 12 0.0183667 Downstream 12 0.0152333 Grand mean 0.016116
Significance F level
0.79 0.5396
Homogeneous • groups
1 1 1 1 1
FPLSD = tcac0.osxclf=43,J°(2MSE/r) =0.00602. Detectable difference= (FPLSD/Grand mean)lOO = 37.4%
20
Appendix Table 1.-Continued.
1989 Releases-- ANOVATable
Sum.of Mean Significance Source sguares D.F. sguare F level Blocks 0.0224180 11 0.0020380 Treatments 0.0008555 5 0.0001711 1.310692 0.2730 Error 0.0071802 55 0.0001305 Total 0.0304537 71
Homogeneous • Treatment
Upper turbine Mid-level turb. Bypass Tailrace Spillway Downstream Grand mean
Count Mean 12 0.0322583 12 0.0355917 12 0.0339167 12 0.0413 12 0.041025 12 0.03865
0.0371
FPLSD = tcci:0.osxclf=H/(2MSE/r) =0.0093398
groups 1 1 1 1 1 1
Detectable difference = (FPLSD/Grand mean)lOO = 25.2%
1990 Releases- ANOVATable ANOVATable
3 Treatments 10 Blocks 2 Treatments 21 Blocks Sum of Mean Signif. Sum of Mean Signif. B!l!!ares D.F. !!!l!!&re F level !!luares D.F. eguare F level
Blocks 0.001141 9 0.000127 0.003559 20 0.000178 Treat 0.000075 2 0.000037 1.498 0.2601 0.000122 1 0.000122 2.999 0.0987 Error 0.000449 18 0.000026 0.000816 20 0.000041 Total 0.001665 29 0.004498 41
Homogeneous Homogeneous Treatment Count Mean
. B!!!Ups Count Mean . groups
Mid-level turb. 10 0 .• 0095 1 Bypass 10 0.0131 1 21 0.01349 1 Tailrace 10 0.0125 1 21 0.01690 1 Grand mean 0.01169 0.01520
FPLSD = ~-o.osxM.18f(2MSF/r) = 0.00465.
Detectable cliff'.= (FPLSD/Grand mean)lOO = 39.8% Detectable cliff.= CFPLSD/Grand mean)lOO = 26.7%
• Homogeneous groups are identified by a common number.
~
21
Appendix Table 2.-Distribution of observed adult recoveries by age and location for URB fall chinook salmon released as juveniles during 1987 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2 February 1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salmon· Hatcheries.
Number of recaptures at age
Recapture location 2 3 4 6 6 (1988) (1989) (1990) (1991) (1992)
Release location: All Number released: 1,720,385
Ocean sport fishery, Alaska 1 3 3 o• Ocean net fishery, Alaska 16 5 7 o• Ocean troll fishery, Alaska 0 14 380 o• Ocean sport fishery, British Columbia 0 6 6 o• Ocean net fishery, British Columbia 37 28 26 o• Ocean troll fishery, British Columbia 2 85 345 o• Ocean sport fishery, Washington 3 21 17 3 Ocean net fishery, Washington 0 14 0 0 Ocean troll fishery, Washington 1 13 21 0 Ocean sport fishery, Oregon 1 0 3 1 Ocean troll fishery, Oregon 1 7 2 10 Ocean fishery, California 0 0 0 3 Columbia R. sport fishery, Oregon 0 6 0 0 Columbia R. sport fishery, Washington 0 0 4 2 Columbia R. net fishery, Younge Bay 0 6 6 0 Columbia R. net fishery, Zones 1·6 3 144 239 221 Columbia R. net fishery, Zone 6 (fall) 6 114 603 329 Stream survey, Big White Salmon River, ORM 168.3 0 2 1 o• Stream survey, Umatilla River, CRM 288.8 0 2 1 0-Stream survey, Columbia River, ORM 361.7 0 0 3 0-Columbia R., Bonneville Hat.chery, CRM 144.6 102 267 312 195 Columbia R., Cascade Hatchery, ORM 146.0 66 46 1 1 Columbia R., Little White Salmon NFH, CRM 161.1 23 61 110 129 Columbia R., Spring Creek NFH, ORM 166.6 1 0 4 0 Columbia R., Priest Rapids Hatchery, CRM 397.1 4 0 3 o• Snake R., Lyons Ferry Hatchery, SRM 68.0 1 16 16 o• Umatilla R., 3-Mile Trap 0 2 0 o• Quinault R. sport fishery, Washington 0 0 0 1
Totals 266 861 2,112 895
• Coded-wire-tag recoveries for 1991 not complete.
Recaptures by location
No.
7 0.2 28 0.7
394 9.6 12 0.3 91 2.2
432 10.4 44 1.1 14 0.3 36 0.8 6 0.1
20 0.5 3 0.1 6 0.2 6 0.2
10 0.2 607 14.7
1,051 26.4 3 0.1 3 0.1 3 0.1
876 21.2 113 2.7 323 7.8
6 0.1 7 0.2
33 0.8 2 1
4,134 100.0
22
Appendix Table 3.-Distribution of observed adult recoveries by age and location for URB fall chinook salmon released as juveniles during 1988 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2 February 1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salm.on Hatcheries.
Number of recaptures at age Recaptures by location
Recapture location 2 3 4 6 6 (1989) (1990) (1991) (1992) (1993) No. %
Release location: All Number released: 1,777,396
Ocean sport fishery, Alaska 0 0 o• 0 0.0 Ocean net fishery, Alaska 2 0 o• 2 0.7 Ocean troll fishery, Alaska 0 12 o• 12 4.2 Ocean sport fishery, British Co1umbia 0 0 o• 0 0.0 Ocean net fishery, British Columbia 4 6 o• 9 3.2 Ocean troll fishery, British Columbia 0 17 o• 17 6.0 Ocean sport fishery, Washington 0 6 1 6 2.1 Ocean net fishery, Washingt.on 0 0 0 0 0.0 Ocean troll fishery, Washington 0 2 0 2 0.7 Ocean sport fishery, Oregon 0 1 0 1 0.4 Ocean troll fishery, Oregon 0 3 0 3 1.1 Ocean fishery, California 0 0 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. sport fishery, Oregon 0 0 0 0 o.o Cobunbia R. sport fishery, Washington 0 ·O 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. net fishery, Younge Bay 0 0 0 0 o.o Columbia R. net fishery, Zones 1-6 2 6 21 29 10.3 Columbia R. net fishery, Zone 6 (falJ) 0 29 61 80 28.4 Stream survey, Big White Salmon River, CRM 168.3 0 0 o• 0 0.0 Stream survey, Umatilla River, CRM 288.8 0 0 o· 0 0.0 Stream survey, Columbia River, CRM 361. 7 0 0 0- 0 0.0 Columbia R., Bonneville Hat.chery, CRM 144.6 11 30 33 74 26.2 Columbia R., Cascade Hatchery, CRM 146.0 9 2 0 11 3.9 Columbia R., Little White Salmon NFH, CRM 161.1 7 10 13 30 io.6 Columbia R., Spring Creek NFH, CRM 166.6 0 0 0 0 0.0 Columbia R., Priest Rapids Hatchery, CRM 397.1 0 1 o• 1 0.4 Snake R., Lyons Ferry Hatchery, SRM 68.0 2 2 o• 4 1.4 Umatilla R., 3-Mile Trap 0 1 o• 1 0.4 Quinault R. sport fishery, Washington 0 0 0 0 0.0
" Totals 37 126 119 282 100.0
• Coded-wire-tag recoveries for 1991 not complete.
,...,
,...
~
23
Appendix Table 4.-Distribution of observed adult recoveries by age and location for URB fall chinook salmon released as juveniles during 1989 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2February1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little White Salmon Hatcheries.
Number of recaptures at age Recaptures by location
Recapture location 2 3 4 5 6 (1990) (1991) (1992) (1993) (1994) No. %
Release location: All Number released: 2,123,383
Ocean sport fishery, Alaska 0 o• 0 o.o Ocean net fishery, Alaska 6 o• 6 0.6 Ocean troll fishery, Alaska 0 o• 0 0.0 Ocean sport fishery, British Columbia 0 o• 0 0.0 Ocean net fishery, British Columbia 37 o· 37 4.7 Ocean troll fishery, British Columbia 0 o• 0 0.0 Ocean sport fishery, Washington 2 1 3 0.4 Ocean net fishery, Washington 0 0 0 0.0 Ocean troll fishery, Washington 0 0 0 0.0 Ocean sport fishery, Oregon 0 1 1 0.1 Ocean troll fishery, Oregon 0 1 1 0.1 Ocean fishery, California 0 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. sport fishery, Oregon 0 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. sport fishery, Washington 1 0 1 0.1 Columbia R. net fieheey, Younge Bay 0 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. net fishery, Zones 1-6 6 82 88 11.1 Columbia R. net fishery, Zone 6 (fall) 26 70 96 12.1 Stream survey, Big White Salmon River, CRM 168.3 0 0- 0 0.0 Stream aurvey, Umatilla River, CRM 288.8 0 o• 0 0.0 StTeam survey, Columbia River, CRM 361. 7 0 oa 0 0.0 Columbia R., Bonneville Hat.chery, CRM 144.5 181 212 393 49.7 Columbia R., Cascade Hatchery, CRM 146.0 73 11 84 10.6 Columbia R., Little White Salmon NFH, CRM 161.1 38 40 78 9.9 Columbia R., Spring Creek NFH, CRM 166.6 0 0 0 0.0 Columbia R., Priest Rapids Hatchery, CRM 397.1 1 o• 1 0.1 Snake R., Lyons Ferry Hatchery, SRM 68.0 0 o• 0 0.0
Umatilla R., 3-Mile Trap 3 o• 3 0.4
Quinault R. sport fishery, Washington 0 0 0 0.0
-- -- --Totals 373 418 791 100.0
• Coded-wire-tag recoveries for 1991 not complete.
24
Appendix Table 5.-Distribution of observed adult recoveries by age and location for URB fall chinook salmon released as juveniles during 1990 to evaluate passage survival at Bonneville Dam. PSMFC database listings through 2 February 1992 and rack recoveries during 1991 at Bonneville, Cascade, and Little Whit.e Salmon Hatcheries.
Number of recaptures at age Recaptures by location
Recapture location 2 3 4 5 6 (1991) (1992) (1993) (1994) (1995) No. %
Release location: All Number released: 1,724,847
Ocean sport fishery, Alaska o• 0 0.0 Ocean net fishery, Alaska 0- 0 0.0 Ocean troll fishery, Alaska o· 0 0.0 Ocean sport fishery, British Columbia o• 0 0.0 Ocean net fishery, British Columbia o• 0 0.0 Ocean trolJ fishery, British Columbia o• 0 0.0 Ocean sport fishery, Washington 0 0 0.0 Ocean net fishery, Washingt.on 0 0 0.0 Ocean troll fishery, Washington 0 0 0.0 Ocean sport fishery, Oregon 0 0 0.0 Ocean troll fishery, Oregon 0 0 0.0 Ocean fishery, California 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. sport fishery, OTegon 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. sport fishery, Washington 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. net fishery, Younge Bay 0 0 0.0 Columbia R. net fishery, Zones 1-5 16 16 6.1 Columbia R. net fishery, Zone 6 (fall) 8 8 3.1 Stream survey, Big White Salmon River, CRM 168.3 o• 0 0.0 Stream survey, Umatilla River, CRM 288.8 o• 0 0.0 Stream survey, Columbia River, CRM 361. 7 0- 0 o.o Columbia R., Bonneville Hatchery, ORM 144.6 108 108 41.4 Columbia R., Cascade Hatchery, CRM 146.0 82 82 31.4 Columbia R., Little White Salmon NFH, ORM 161.1 47 47 18.0 Columbia R., Spring Creek NFH, CRM 166.6 0 0 0.0 Columbia R., Priest Rapids Hatchery, CRM 397.1 o• 0 0.0 Snake R., Lyons Ferry Hatchery, SRM 68.0 o• 0 0.0
Umatilla R., 3-Mile Trap o• 0 0.0 Quinault R. sport fishery, Washington 0 0 0.0
-- -- -- --261 261 100.0
• Coded-wire-tag recoveries for 1991 not complete.
~
,Fi'\
.4\
25
Appendix Table 6.--Status of PSMFC recovery data (as of 19 May 1992) used for comparisons of Bonneville survival study 1;o other releases of URB fall chinook salmon, 1987-1990 .
CWT recovery data sets available in PSMFC recovery files•
Year Recovery agencyl>
CDFG ODFW WDF WDW IDFG CDFO ADFG FWS NMFS NIFC QDNR METL (AK)
87 v v v I NR v v v s v v
88 v v v I NR v v v NR v v
89 v v v I NR v v I NR v v
90 v v v NR NR v v v NR v s
91 I I I I NR I I NR NR NR NR
• I = Incomplete data set, but available data are validated and online. V = Fully (finalized) validated and online data set. S = Submitted but not yet validated data set. NR = Not reported at this time in PSMFC format.
I
I
I
I
I
b CDFG = California Dept. of Fish and Game; ODFW = Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife; WDF =Washington Dept. of Fisheries; WDW =Washington Dept. of Wildlife; IDFG =Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game; CDFO = Canadian Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans; ADFG = Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NMFS =-National Marine Fisheries Service; AK = Alaska; NIFC = Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission; QDNR = Quinault; METL = Metlakatla.
INCOMPLETE DATA SETS
1) WDW's recoveries in the mainstem Columbia River have been reported through ODFW.
However, recoveries in Columbia River basin tributaries and Puget Sound are unreported.
2) Metlakatla (METL) has reported recoveries for its fisheries through ADFG. However, hatchery
retmns are unreported at this time.
26
Appendix Table 7.-Coded-wire-tag codes of marked groups used for adult recovery comparisons (Table 4)• of Bonneville survival study t;o other releases ofURB fall chinook salmon, 1987-1990.
1987 Releases 232053,58,60,63,2105,10, 16, 17,20,26,30,36,37,40,46,60,56,67,60,2202,07, 12, 14, 17,22 074719,21,37,38 074722,26 074732,36 074741,42 074315,16, 17,18 074129,4309, 19,20 633316 073912, 13, 14 B50101,02,03,04,05,06,0201,02,0713, 14, 634259,61 634262,4401 051915, 19,20,21 051916, 17, 18 051922 634128
1988 Releases 232504, 14,25,35,44,55,52,2601, 11,21,31,41,60 074254 074303 074304 073555 075007 B50107,0616,0708,09, 10,11,12,15 0501010101,02,03 635211, 13, 14,16 635232 636226
1989 Releases 232801, 13,25,37,49,61,3108,21,32,44,56,3204 075030,33 075034,36 074646,47,48 074753,54,57,68,60,63 0501010205,06 0601010202,03,04 635249 635252 630226,28 636204,07
1990 Rele8989 232453,66,69,62,2605,10,17,23,29,34,40,46,63,68,2603,09,15,20,27,33,39 075408,09 075406,07 052337,38 630416,631459· 075403,04,05 075322,23,24,25,26,27 0501010207, 11and,062120 0501010208,09, 10 630732 630756 635544, 47, 49,50
• Coded-wire-tag codes Ust.ed in each row represent the combined groups used for comparison in Table 4 . The order of groups is the same on both tables.
